The United States Supreme Court has ruled that migrants waiting on the Mexican side of the American border cannot apply for asylum under U.S. law, dealing a significant blow to immigration advocates who had fought the policy for nearly a decade.
The six-to-three ruling, written by Justice Samuel Alito, found that a migrant standing in Mexico has not legally arrived in the United States and is therefore not entitled to apply for asylum or be inspected by an immigration officer.
The decision centres on a U.S. government practice known as “metering” — a policy under which border officers turn away migrants at ports of entry, keeping them on the Mexican side of the border when a crossing point is deemed too full to process new arrivals.
The policy dates to 2016, when U.S. authorities began stopping migrants before they could step onto American soil, reasoning that once a migrant crossed the boundary line, the government was legally obligated to process their asylum claim.
By keeping them in Mexico, officials argued they could manage the volume of arrivals at border crossings.
The policy was later expanded, then scrapped by the Biden administration, before the current Trump administration moved to revive it.
The case was brought by Al Otro Lado, a California-based immigrant rights organisation, alongside 13 individual asylum seekers who argued that turning migrants away before they set foot on American soil violated U.S. immigration law, which requires officers to inspect anyone who arrives at a port of entry and allows those fleeing persecution to apply for asylum.
A lower appeals court had sided with the migrants, ruling that a person standing at the border and seeking entry had effectively arrived in the United States and was entitled to be processed.
The Supreme Court reversed that decision on Thursday, sending the case back to lower courts.
The court’s three liberal justices dissented, arguing that U.S. law had for decades required immigration officers to inspect and process anyone seeking entry at a port of entry, regardless of which side of the physical boundary line they were standing on when stopped.
The ruling is expected to significantly expand the U.S. government’s power to manage its southern border, potentially allowing authorities to turn away large numbers of asylum seekers without any legal obligation to hear their claims.
